Death penalty by hanging

Are capital punishment and pro-life views inherently at odds? Yes, argues a guest writer to the ULC blog.

The following guest sermon was submitted by ULC minister Daniel Oyama. All ULC members are invited to contribute their own sermons for consideration/publication. To submit a sermon, please email it to

A Bloody Business

In the moments before Kelly Gissendaner was executed in Georgia back in 2015, the convicted murderer sang “Amazing Grace” as she awaited her early demise. At the final hour, a plea came in from Pope Francis to the state’s Christian governor asking to spare her life. It fell on deaf ears.

The deeply religious state of Arkansas made national headlines last year after it put four inmates to death in the span of eight days – although that proved to be fewer than the eight executions that ambitious state officials had wanted to carry out following the Easter holiday. The great state of Texas – the proverbial buckle of the Bible belt – has executed 555 people since 1982, including just over half of the 19 executions that have taken place in 2018.

Pro-Life Hypocrisy

But here’s a curious thought: these same Christian politicians and legislators who adamantly support capital punishment keep winning election after election virtue-signalling about their so-called “pro-life” views. How does that work? How can someone retain any shred of moral consistency when they condemn abortion in one breath, then turn around and cheer the death penalty in the next? How have so many Christians come to rationalize capital punishment as compatible with a religious message that says all lives have inherent value?

By continuing to support the death penalty, these folks allow their own country to reside in the uncomfortable company of authoritarian states like China, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia – all of whom readily executed their own citizens. Missing from that list? Nearly every other developed Western country.

Do All Lives Matter?

Perhaps it is easier to defend the innocent. And there is nothing as innocent as an unborn child. Defending murderers, sociopaths and serial rapists is a tougher spiritual sell.

And yet it’s one all Christian leaders must make. For all the Catholic Church’s own faults, Pope Francis has become a moral beacon for Christians worldwide by calling for an end to the death penalty – just as Mother Teresa and Sister Helen Prejean did before him.

True pro-life Christians of all stripes need to take a good hard look in the mirror and figure out why it’s so difficult from them to forgive death row inmates who, in a decent majority of cases, have confessed to their crimes, reformed and spent years healing the wounds they have caused. Many have done so by bringing the Lord into their lives.

Have We No Compassion?

It’s easier to keep a safe distance. Bars, cells, prisons…all have a way of dehumanizing the individuals behind and inside them. Maybe Christians should do what Jesus would do were he still around and actually visit these sinners. Hear them out. Pray with them.

This is what being pro-life should really be all about; allowing the weakest amongst us to be given a good reason to believe in their own.

In the same New Testament so many of our nation’s devout hold sacred, Jesus leads by lofty example. “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy,” he preached, right up until the final moments of his own unjust execution.

Mercy, sadly, seems to be a precious commodity in the Bible belt right now, where too many of the same fervent defenders of life continue to sanction the death penalty as a “necessary and just” punishment that shouldn’t be theirs to dish out.



  1. Don says:

    The problem is in the terms. Every single “pro life” individual I have ever met, after some probing questions, turns out NOT to be pro-life. but rather Pro-Birth. Which, in turn, makes it easy for them to be pro-death penalty. They couldn’t care less about the life of the child after its born.

  2. Kirk says:

    An article about Christian hypocracy? What about so called liberal hypocracy? Insisting on taxpayer funding for the murder of unborn children while supporting sanctuary cities that harbor illegal aliens that murder our citizens?

    1. Don says:

      “the murder of unborn children ” — Called it! These “pro-lifers” aren’t Pro Life at all, they are Pro Birth! Thanks that, Kirk.

    2. Don says:

      What about so called conservative illiteracy? (it’s spelled HYPOCRISY)

    3. Bob says:

      Maybe I’m not reading correctly but it sounds almost like you are inferring that liberals cannot be Christians by definition. Choice is choice whether its execution or abortion. That’s what I’m understanding the author to be saying. Maybe it’s all about the judging and not so much principled compassion that divides this country in half. Of course, maybe I’m wrong.

    4. Michelle Teeter says:

      Racist much? I hope you are not a minister.

      1. Kirk says:

        “Racist much?” What was racist about my post? I didn’t mention race one tiny little bit. I hope you get well soon because at the moment you are obviously brain dead.

        1. Reverend Krystina S. says:

          I agree with Michelle Teeter. Your designation of “sanctuary cities” is factually incorrect, as those undocumented people who commit such crimes are NOT part of the Sanctuary movement, and are much more likely to be murdered than to commit crimes, anyway. If you would read your Bible, you would note that LIFE actually begins AFTER the first breath is taken AFTER birth is completed. Before that, not so. But using the Bible to condemn others is so much easier. And what about being against birth control, which is not abortion? Where is the intelligence in that? You, Kirk, are not just a Christofascist, but also shaky on your “Bible.”

        2. Val Jester says:

          Kirk, anything a liberal finds offensive is automatically labeled racism. Hence, everything is racist.

          1. Travis says:

            Therefore condemning any immigration that does not follow legal processes is automatically considered racist.

          2. John D. Partin says:

            Val Jester, that is, quite obviously, not true because liberals find homophobia to be offensive and that is about sexual preference bigotry, not racist bigotry. Liberals find denial of equal rights to women offensive and that isn’t about racist bigotry, either, but about chauvinistic and misogynistic and patriarchal bigotry. Liberals find child molestation to be offensive and not about sexual freedom, but only about sickness, and that isn’t about racist bigotry, either. The list goes on and on of things that liberals find offensive that aren’t at all about racist bigotry. So, you see that you greatly oversimplified and misrepresented the liberal position and feeling with your statement and, in fact, OUTRIGHT LIED!!!

        3. michelle says:

          “sanctuary cities that harbor illegal aliens that murder our citizens” Is racist. The fact that you do not recognize that says a lot about you. But I would not expect the religious right to admit to that. I find it so sad and I pity people like you. AS a minister I will pray for you. My god open your heart and release you from the hate that fills your heart. I ask this in the name of Jesus Christ our Saviour. Amen

          1. Iconoclast says:

            You are insane. That has nothing at all to do with race. You should really look up race and racism. While you are doing so, maybe you should look up hate and self-righteousness.

    5. Ben says:

      Kirk ,,, the Christian hypocrisy is rampant these days. Banning abortions, but lacking the Christian Charity (as decreed by Christ) to help take care of these unwanted children. So as to wait until the child grows up to be a criminal you can have him executed then.
      Goes with not punishing any of those priests who raped countless children, even though it breaks the 10 commandments.
      As for illegals killing citizens. Do some fact checking. Citizens literally kill millions more citizens then the handful of illegals have.?
      Lastly about what percent of your taxes goes for paying for abortions? Any idea? Probably less then a penny per year? Are you going to begrudge a woman a penny?

      1. Michelle says:

        “For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them ” I love that Utopian quote. The right seems to forget what Christ demands of his followers. They will not admit that a white american born man is more likely to kill me than an illegal brown man from someplace else. Now as a women, I am cautious around all men.
        Maybe the fact that I grew up poor I can be empathetic. When I say poor I mean going to bed, school, everywhere hungry. I do not understand how the religious right just don’t care about the poor. How can a religious person, no matter the religion, turn their backs on the needy. Alluding to the fact that illegals are violent. Now with Trump it gives people the idea it is ok.

      2. BethKCZ says:

        The Hyde Amendment takes away ALL government funding for abortions. Period. Regardless of the circumstances.

      3. Mark Hannon says:

        Right. I think ending poverty, abuse and ignorance throughout a child’s life should be a priority to people that claim to be “Pro-Life(Birth)”.

      4. John Owens says:

        So, exactly whom is lacking the Christian charity to “help take care of these unwanted children.” Who said they are unwanted? Here’s an idea: Tell them to stop having unprotected sex or pay for their own abortions.

        Who does not want to punish the priests who raped children?

        If our own citizens kill plenty of people, why do we need to import more killers? Have you ever asked yourself that?

        “Begrudge a woman a penny?” That argument is juvenile. No one should be forced to pay to help anyone else kill babies. Period. “Probably less than a penny a year?” From whose arse did you pull that made-up statistic?

        1. Don says:

          “No one should be forced to pay to help anyone else kill babies.”

          Abortion isn’t killing babies, as anyone above a 7th grade education already knows…oh, it’s Owens again.

          “Who does not want to punish the priests who raped children?”

          Every single Catholic who continues to put money in the collection plate. Where do you think the money comes from to shuffle these priests and hide them from prosecution??

          1. John Owens says:

            If abortion is not killing babies, what is it killing? Your 7th grade comment sounds like an 8th-grader.

            Just FYI, I am not, nor have I ever been a Catholic.

          2. Hank Stanco says:

            A tumor isn’t the same Don. A tumor only has the potential to be a tumor.

            Fetal tissue has the potential to be a human life.

        2. Don says:

          “If abortion is not killing babies, what is it killing?”

          Fetal tissue.

          “Your 7th grade comment sounds like an 8th-grader.”

          Yes, one who passed his biology classes.

          “I am not, nor have I ever been a Catholic.”

          I never said you were. YOU were the one who brought up kiddie loving priests, not I.

          1. John Owens says:

            I made As in biology, High School and college. If the tissue is a few weeks old, maybe it is tissue. If it is 20weeks, it is a baby. A person who kills a pregnant woman is tried for double homicide.

            If you didn’t think I was Catholic, there was no reason to mention it.

          2. Hank Stanco says:

            Fetal tissue. Semantics. Fetal tissue is a baby.

          3. Don says:

            “Fetal tissue. Semantics. Fetal tissue is a baby.”

            No, not semantics, and shame on you for conflation such a plain issue.

            Why DO religious nuts always lie about fetal tissue equaling an infant? It’s not just ignorant, it’s sleazy and dishonest.

          4. Hank Stanco says:

            That fetal tissue is life. More importantly, it is a life with a distinctive dna separate from its mother.

            That fetal tissue has the potential to be an independent life form unlike the tissue of a stomach which only has the potential of being a stomach

          5. Don says:

            “That fetal tissue is life. More importantly, it is a life with a distinctive dna separate from its mother.”

            So is a tumor. Sorry to deflate your position.

            “That fetal tissue has the potential”

            THERE is your key word – POTENTIAL. A sperm and an egg are POTENTIALLY a baby. But CURRENTLY they are no such thing. Are we learning yet?

        3. Don says:

          “I made As in biology, High School and college.”

          Oh, so you were just being a sleazy little troll pretending not to understand the difference between a fetus and a baby. Got it.

          “If you didn’t think I was Catholic, there was no reason to mention it.”

          You asked a question about priests, and I answered it. If you don’t want the answer to a question, DON’T ASK IT. See how that works?

          1. John Owens says:

            I didn’t ask YOU anything, and you don’t know the difference between a fetus and a baby. The difference to you seems to be, whether the mother (whether of a fetus or a baby) wants it. That is moronic.

            Also, you need to look up the meaning of of sleazy. And troll. You seem to be the troll here, and not to know the definition of sleazy.

          2. Mark says:

            can someone explain to me that a single cell organism is considered life by scientists but an organism that is constantly multiplying it’s cells is not life? i am a Druid Priest and in my belief the soul,spirit,life force, whatever you want to call it is created in order to learn certain things in it’s journey to infinity. It takes many times around the wheel of life to accomplish our ultimate goal. Each life we are born into we have something important to learn and if we don’t learn it we are regressed in our cycle. So in my opinion the “soul” is imbued into the first cell as it starts to multiply with the goal, AT THAT MOMENT, of it’s purpose to learn in it’s new life. Imagine this “soul”, with it’s purpose already defined, suddenly bereft of the very flesh it was supposed to occupy. How long must that “soul” pause in it’s journey until the circumstances are right for it to be born and continue it’s progression to finally be with the Gods and Ancestors, or God as some of you could take decades or centuries until that “soul” can continue. This is why I’m pro-life. For those of you who argue that that life begins at birth, remember science. For those Christians who believe life begins at conception, you need to think why you believe this.

        4. Don says:

          “you don’t know the difference between a fetus and a baby.”

          AHAHA!!! Thank you for finally being honest and admitting there IS a difference…even if you didn’t do so intentionally.

          1. John Owens says:

            Yeah. A difference that exists in the mind of a moron.

          2. Don says:

            Another brilliant, articulate reply from John Owens! Such depth, such intelligence!
            Go huff some more paint you looney. Jesus said you should.

        5. Don says:

          Thank you, John Owens, for showing everyone reading this page just what a truly loving Christian you really are. Don’t forget the pointed hood and iron cross.

    6. Ministers of love and acceptance says:

      You equate illegal people to Murders. You should look at the stats if you can. You may be too blind to see the truth. Legal citizens are more likely to commit murder. My guess is you think these guys who shoot up gay clubs is not bad. That he is doing God’s work. The white guy shooting up music venues is just misunderstood because they are white. If you are a Christian remember your savior was not white so check yourself.

      1. John Owens says:

        The legal citizens at least have a right to be here. The illegal people do NOT. What is your mental block with that concept?

      2. John Owens says:

        You are the one who has mentioned that the guy shooting up gay clubs is not bad or a guy shooting up music venues is misunderstood. I never said anything remotely resembling that.


        Just what color are the Aliens we came from….

  3. Kathleen Baird says:

    The “ProLife” people make access to birth control expensive and/or difficult. They don’t want welfare or food stamps for a woman struggling to feed a child that she did not, or was unable to abort.
    These people are NOT ProLife: they are only ProBirth!

    1. Hank Stanco says:

      And what do you call those people that believe that abortion should be legal yet protest against capital punishment?

      1. John Owens says:


        1. Hank Stanco says:


        2. John D. Partin says:

          So, John Owens and Hank Stanco, how are “pro-life” people who want babies to be born, but convicted killers to be executed, not merely just pro-birth but actually pro-death after that and uncaring about what happens to people after birth, as Don and others have said here?!! That makes all of their talk about “the sanctity of human life” really just hollow rhetoric when they disrespect and violate that “sanctity” constantly after people’s births with condescension, snobbishness, patronizing, inequality, and hate disguised as “love”!!

    2. John Owens says:

      That is a silly lie. Pro-life people have no say in the cost if contraception, and the vast majority of them USE some form of it. If you would just be honest, you wouldn’t be a liar.

    3. Ben says:

      Kathleen – That’s because God is punishing these women for opening their legs, by giving them an unwanted child, that they can’t afford to take care of. The perfect recipe for child abuse/neglect.
      I loathe Christianity more and more, every day,

      1. John Owens says:

        That may have been the attitude of some, back in the 1950s and 1960s. Before you were born. You would be hard-pressed to find someone with that attitude today. That idea is only your own paranoid prejudice.

        1. Don says:

          “You would be hard-pressed to find someone with that attitude today.”

          Took me 2 minutes on Google to find a plethora of religious groups that believe exactly that. Surely your As in school gave you the ability to perform simple online searches?

          It’s funny watching idiots who believe a magic being is always watching them accuse others of paranoia.

          1. John Owens says:


        2. Ben says:

          Don – thank you backing me.

          John Owens – 1st that’s not from before I was born. Thanks.
          2nd – Just read through the posts here. It’s full of comments of “Well if she didn’t want a baby, she shoulda kept her legs closed. It’s all on the woman. The man is absolved as a matter of course. Also pro-birth vs pro-life is proven by the fact of “I the law making man, am telling you the woman, that you must have this baby and no, we’re not going to help you care for it in any way. We’re not even going to force the father to in anyway be responsible. Suck it up buttercup, shoulda kept your knees closed, slut.”

          1. John Owens says:

            You are the only one I have ever heard say such a thing. You must be from a very backward area. I pity you.

    4. Tom says:

      Kathleen…this is the first time i saw this take…well said…Peace…Tom

    5. John Owens says:

      Abortion is not contraception. Contraception is contraception. Contraception prevents unwanted babies. Abortion ends their lives, often in a cruel and hideous manner.

      This is not hate speech, nor judgemental, because we all know what the customs are today. Otherwise normal and decent humans have been persuaded that dismembering unborn infants is somehow humane, and preferable to an uncertain life.

      Life is always uncertain, and death is final. If it is cruel to put an adult to death for crimes, it is certainly cruel to rip a baby apart while it is still in the womb, where it should be safe and secure.

      There are times, I think, where it is the proper thing to do, but those times would be few and far between, if people just practiced a little responsibility with their procreative abilities.

  4. Nick says:

    Kirk, yours is a common misunderstanding of sanctuary cities. They do not harbor murders or those committing crimes except… law enforcement will not hold a person for ICE if they have not committed a crime a citizen would not be charged with.


    Women don’t impregnate themselves. Want to end abortions??? Then the men need to take extra care to not knock up women.

    1. Ben says:

      Jolene- rapists should have their hands and genitalia removed.
      That’ll stop rape.

      1. John Owens says:

        I agree, Ben


        How about teaching men to keep their damn hands to themselves. Execute ALL criminals for any infraction and crime ends. Saves Blue Lives too.

    2. Don says:

      So women are just brood mares with no intelligence, responsibility or accountability??
      That sounds disgustngly sexist.
      Other than rape, WOMEN have all the power when it comes to reproduction.
      Stop shifting the responsibility to people who can’t even get pregnant.

      1. Ben says:

        Don it takes two, to tango. So,,, the responsibility is on both.

        1. Don says:

          Let me know the instant men can get pregnant.
          Until then, the power lies in the hands (or laps) of the WOMEN.

          1. Ben says:

            Don – sounds great. If the power lies with women, then men to to shut the f**k up about what women want to do with that power.
            Including getting abortions if they want to.

        2. Don says:

          I think you meant “need to” – and yes, that along with women taking RESPONSBILITY for that power. Including getting abortions if they want to. Like Spiderman’s Uncle Ben said.


        Guess it’s just you and your blow up baby dolly.

  6. Travis says:

    On the contrary.

    It is true that the Death Penalty should be taken seriously, and should not be taken frivolously. The Death Penalty should be reserved strictly for criminals with no remorse or hope of redemption. The Death Penalty should never be used as a standard go-to punishment, but should be used as a last resort.

    With the exception of certifiably insane criminals, all of these hardened, non-repentant monsters know that committing murder is morally wrong. They commit their crime, knowing that they will be punished severely for such grievous acts, and yet they do it anyway, accepting the eventual consequences of their depravity.

    However, the Death Penalty is indeed a “Pro-Life” phenomena.

    Hardened, unrepentant, remorseless serial killers are sentanced to death for a very viable reason: to protect the lives of the people who remain alive in society.

    Many criminals on Death Row are hardened and remorseless. They have no value for human life and are not sorry for the deaths they have caused. Some even thrill in the excitement of taking human lives, and do not regret their savagery. No amount of therapy, sensitivity, or coddling will ever turn these monsters away from their brutal cruelties.

    These savage criminals owe a life for the lives they took, which don’t belong to them.

    Pardoning criminals such as these only releases these monsters back into society allows them opportunity to return to their ways and brutally murder more innocent people. In releasing these savage criminals, the lives countless thousands or millions of innocent are at risk. Many more senseless murders. Many more lives lost. Releasing these criminals shows a lack of value for the lives of the people that remain.

    Now, consider the families of the original victims.
    To coddle and hand-slap a remorseless, brutal murderer only cheapens the value of the life of their murdered loved-one, in their eyes. By not taking the life of a savage murderer in return, we are saying that the murderer’s life has more intrinsic value than that of the victim.

    Obviously, not every Death Row criminal gets directly released back into society instead of being executed.
    Most mass murderers denied the death penalty get incarcerated into prison for life; some are stockades where prisoners are subjected to daily hard labor. In which case, their continued life is supported by hard-earned resources taken from law-abiding citizens without their consent (through taxes). A luxury that the aforementioned victims don’t get the priviledge of.

    Now, consider the fact that not all prisons out there are hard labor stockades. There are actual prisons out there that offer prisoners a large window in their cells with a beautiful view of the surrounding wilderness, televisions, cushioned beds and chairs, laundry services, corridors and cells with well kept white walls and marble floors, raquetball courts, libraries, and the like. Although these criminals are still confined within the prison walls, they live a lavish life equivalent to that of a millionaire that their victims had no hope of achieving, all at the expense of your average, hard-working, law-abiding taxpayer.

    In essense, we are rewarding hardened, remorseless, savage criminals, for making the CHOICE to savagely and brutally take the LIFE of innocent, law-abiding people, with a very lavish and posh life of luxury, paid for at the expense of good people who may not want their hard-earned resources to be used to reward murderous criminals for devriving their victims of the chance to earn their own luxuries through hard work.

    I certainly don’t want my resources used to spoil criminals.

    So, by supporting the Death Penalty, I show the value of the lives of the victims over (if not equal to) the lives of the criminals who show no value for human life, and benefit from that lack of value.

    The Death Penalty IS a Pro-Life punishment.

    1. John Owens says:

      Thank you for this.

    2. Hank Stanco says:

      Nice try Travis. The death penalty is not pro-life. It takes a life. Period. Once the government has secured a prisoner that he can no longer harm them that’s all that is needed.


        Wrong. They continue their ways behind bars with rape murder drugs. Just execute all of them and eradicate crime.

        1. Hank Stanco says:

          Nope. That’s no better than intentionally killing an unborn baby. They are both made in God’s image.

  7. pontotocbill says:

    You get the facts wrong. I amnot pro-life and a supporter of the death penalty. Here is why. Pro-life: abortion is the killing of a human life. This life has never done anything wrong and is a totally innocent live. To abort a fetus is, in my opinion, murder. Abortion is killing a human life that did not commit any crime, made no decision, or imposed harm on another human life. Pro Death Penalty: the criminal sentenced to death has taken a human life without cause. The criminal made a decision to end another human’s life. With t:-)he death penalty, we restore the sanctity of human life. The criminal is put to death for a crime they willingly committed which resulted in the taking of an innocent human life.

  8. Janice Ellery says:

    Supporting abortion while opposing the death sentence can also be viewed as an inconsistent moral stance. This site definitely has a more liberal, atheistic stance. Their right to have their view but at least they should be more honest about it.

    1. Michelle Teeter says:


      1. Reverend Krystina S. says:

        Liberal, therefore athiest??? Moral inconsistency??? You mean, like being against abortion in all circumstances, being PRO GUN, and being PRO death penalty??? People of Faith are NOT just Right wing Radicals. Christans are NOT just “Conservatives” who are “prolife progun prodeath(penalty)” How dare you put “Real” Christians in YOUR box???

      2. Val Jester says:

        It is very simple. One human is blameless. The other is found guilty by his peers. So simple even a cave woman can understand it.

        1. Ministers of love and acceptance says:

          And all the innocent that have been freed from death row? Many of the men out there would not be there today. Racist people help put these men in prison eye witnesses that we know or unreliable put them there DNA is setting them free. But some innocent men have been put to death. Until it is fool proof it needs to stop.

          1. John Owens says:

            So, let’s just not punish anybody for anything, because we may later find out they are ALL innocent. Don’t put armed robbers in prison– THEY MAY BE INNOCENT! Don’t make people pay speeding tickets– THEY MAY BE INNOCENT! Do you see how illogical your “logic” is?

          2. John Owens says:

            BTW, have those aborted babies been proven worthy of death?

          3. Don says:

            “Don’t put armed robbers in prison– THEY MAY BE INNOCENT! Don’t make people pay speeding tickets– THEY MAY BE INNOCENT! Do you see how illogical your “logic” is?”

            Speaking of illogical…if a person in prison is found innocent, they can be set free. If a person who received a ticket is found innocent, they have the ticket rescinded.

            Your silly analogies don’t work, unless you’re claiming to have the power to raise the dead (and given some of your prior superstitious claims, I would not be surprised).

        2. Hank Stanco says:

          But both are intentionally taking a life.

    2. Gail D says:

      Substitute “women’s rights” for “abortion” in your first statement; see if that clears up the facts for you.

  9. power to the people says:

    Killing the unborn or killing a murderer aretqwo different things.

    That not “hypocracy”.

    1. Stephanie Willey says:

      Exactly HOW are they different things?

      1. power to the people says:

        Hmmmmm….let’s see……killing an unborn child who is innocent, and killing a murderer……I dunno, I can’t see how those two are different in any way.


        1. Carl Elfstrom says:

          Killing people who are not trying to kill you or others at the time they are killed is murder,whether it can otherwise be justified in our minds ,or not.

          1. Travis says:

            Do you have any idea how retarded that sounds?

            “I kill someone…. Whoop! I’m not killing anyone anymore, you can’t punish me!…….
            I kill someone……. Whoop! not killing anymore, you can’t punish me!
            I kill another person…….. Whoop! Now, I’m not!
            Another person dead…….. Whoop! Tata! Don’t murder me!
            Whoops! I killed another person!….. Can’t stop me from killing a lot of people!
            Oh, dear. Now I’m in prison. But that’s okay. I get free room and board, paid for by the taxpayers. Such a shame my victims don’t get to eat such delicious slop in the mess hall! I get to live and they don’t, so my life here in jail is more valuable than theirs.”

            The definition of murder is “the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought”.

            Being a form of legalized punishment, the Death Penalty is VERY lawful, and therefore not murder.

            Technically, (unfortunately) so is Abortion.

            Both Abortion and the Death Penalty are legal and lawful. The difference is an unborn child is innocent and deserves to be allowed to live, while a murderer had forfeited his right to live by taking a life that doesn’t belong to him/her.

            Ironically, anyone who supports Abortion and is against the Death Penalty has no Morality or value for innocent human life.

          2. Martha Knight says:

            That’s an argument for sentencing convicted murderers to prison for life, perhaps. Not for executing them, as Truman Capote’s book title mentioned, In Cold Blood.

          3. power to the people says:

            Right on Travis. Well said.

    2. Ben says:

      Very true. Biologically an unborn is a parasite feeding on it’s host the mother and she has the right to get rid of that parasite or have it be born into a human.
      Killing a murderer is waiting until that unaborted parasite becomes a human and grows up before killing it.

      1. Michelle says:

        I am not totally against the death penalty. The problem is too many innocent people have been killed.

        1. John Owens says:

          What about all the innocent babies?

          1. Don says:

            What innocent babies? Are you still wearing the idiot blinders and conflating a fetus with a baby? GROW UP.

          2. John Owens says:

            So, Donny, you are saying the “fetuses” are all guilty?

            Let me explain something to you: fetus is a made-up term used solely for the justification of abortion. It offends the sensitivities of all to kill babies, but if it is “just a fetus”, “just tissue”, then it is okay. Well, now in some places, they can be killed right up until birth, for any reason, and only a human jack ass would say they are not human any time after 6 months, much less at the moment of birth. You are the one with closed eyes.

          3. Ben says:

            To all Republicans who insist on banning abortion because it”kills innocent humans.
            So do chemical spills in our water. And gun rampages in our malls and at our schools.
            And starvation because mothers can’t earn a living wage even working 60-hour weeks.
            And curable diseases when parents have no access to affordable healthcare.
            And yet while you sanctimoniously stick your nose in my family-planning choices, you have smugly opposed every attempt at safety regulations, gun control, raising the minimum wage, and the ACA.
            You are the worst kind of hypocrites:
            arrogant and ignorant. You are what’s
            Wrong with America today.

      2. Tom says:

        Ben…your writing of January 28 at 5:18 is well-written and accurate…Peace…Tom

      3. John Owens says:

        And if you took care of your own “family planning”, this wouldn’t be a conversation.

      4. John Owens says:

        I fail to see anything “sanctimonious” about defending infants.

    3. Hank Stanco says:

      Whether an innocent child or a murderer, both are created to n a he image of God.

      If you believe the life of an unborn child is too precious to kill then the life of a murderer is just as precious.

      Likewise, if you believe that humans can decide to end the life of an adult then the life of an unborn child is up for grabs as well.

      1. John Owens says:

        So, you’re saying, as long as we encourage abortion, you’re cool with the death penalty.

        1. Hank Stanco says:

          No. I said if a person is truly pro-life the he would hate the intentional killing of any human being, whether it is an unborn child or a mass murderer.

          Likewise, if a person is pro-choice, he would accept the intentional killing of all human beings, whether an unborn child or the mass murderer.

          We can’t pick and choose which intentional killings are okay and which are not.

          1. Don says:

            “We can’t pick and choose which intentional killings are okay and which are not.”

            Actually, we can and do.

            If you’re going to equate the intentional killing of an innocent to the intentional killing of a serial rapist/murderer, I suggest you take get some therapy and stay away from children.

    4. Hank Stanco says:

      As a matter of fact, it is.

  10. The Pastor/ Been thete, done that says:

    And it’s really stupid. If you kill the inmate it’s ovet for him, he doesn’t suffer any more. Yet the families of who ever HE killed have to live with the pain of loss.
    NO I think locking him up in a tiny cell by himself with no tv radio books is worse puishment.
    And then he will have to eat the prison food that will most likely kill him anyway. Have you ever eatten prison food? I have. Let me tell you it’s not like mom never made. Cold most of the time. The hard boiled eggs have
    GREEN yokes. The burger is more like a hockey puck made of soy bean not beef. The soup is
    MUS GO. Made from everything in the frig that MUST GO. And just what gives us the right to kill someone anyway? The Bible says THOU SHALT NOT. HASN’T ANYONE EVEN LOOKED AT THE BIBLE?

  11. Tom says:

    Respectfully, it appears to me that those that are “pro-life”, but support capital punishment, are setting themselves up as God, so they can make decisions as to who lives and who dies…and that is without even getting into the various circumstances as to the nature of why one person killed another…it is not loving and compassionate for people to choose who lives and who dies…is foregiveness, or even tolerance, for people to categorize?…are there caveats to principles?…Peace…Tom

  12. Sister Ann says:

    The true translation (not transliteration) of the 6th commandment is “You shall not MURDER”, not KILL. That is a very important distinction. Murder is deliberate, even planned (abortion). Killing often involves circumstances, such as protecting your own life or the life of another, or tragically accidental. There is nothing accidental about murder.
    So, I contend that there IS NO HYPOCRISY in upholding the death penalty while upholding the right to life of the unborn.
    GENESIS: 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. 6 “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.

    1. Hank Stanco says:

      Intentional killing of a human being is always wrong. It doesn’t matter if the victim is an unborn child or a mass murderer.

      1. John Owens says:

        What if you intentionally kill a murderer who isis the act of trying to kill a living person?

        1. Hank Stanco says:

          That’s self defense John, the intent is to save a life not kill another human.

      2. Don says:

        “Intentional killing of a human being is always wrong”

        So you get home and notice 2 of your 3 young children butchered with body pieces all over the living room, and a psycho with a knife about to plunge it into your only remaining living child.

        You’re saying killing this scum would be wrong?? If so, NEVER EVER have children!

        1. Hank Stanco says:

          What you describe isnot an intentional killing. It’s self defense. Nice try though.

          1. Iconoclast says:

            But you did say, “intentional killing of another…is ALWAYS wrong…” .Always is an absolute. You should have said, “normally.”
            The death penalty IS defending the sanctity of life when it is used, by showing the perpetrator the penalty for willfully and callously taking life.

          2. Don says:

            So killing a person in self-defense isn’t intentional??
            You should invest in a dictionary.

          3. Hank Stanco says:

            The intest to kill in self defense is to defend one’s own life or the life of another. The intent is not to kill for the sake of killing itself.

            Why do you insist on trying to insult people. Do you have mommy issues? Were you bullied as a child?

          4. Don says:

            “The intent is not to kill for the sake of killing itself. ”

            No one said it was.
            It is still intentionally killing someone. Sorry if words confuse you.

            “Why do you insist on trying to insult people. Do you have mommy issues? Were you bullied as a child?”

            It’s so cute watching you spineless bullies out yourself. You had ZERO ISSUES spewing insults and laughing at the denigration John Owens spewed at others, but now cry like a girl when it’s done to you.

            Hypocrites suck.

          5. Hank Stanco says:

            The intentional killing of a human being is always wrong and it is an absolute.

            The only bullying here is from you. You insult anyone who disagrees with you.

          6. Don says:

            “The intentional killing of a human being is always wrong and it is an absolute.”

            So, to you, killing a human being to save the life of your family is always wrong.
            I pity your family.

            “The only bullying here is from you.”

            Your cowardly denial is hilarious in the face of yours and John’s comments on this very page.

      3. Ben says:

        You’re wrong.
        Committing murder (ie: killing out of malice).
        But other forms of killing can on some occasions be justified: self defense, war, killing a pedophile to protect the community, etc.
        Abortion isn’t murder.
        According to the bible, a human isn’t even alive, till they take their first breath.
        To the ancient Romans, you weren’t a person, until you reached age 1.

        1. Hank Stanco says:

          Just because an intentional killing is justified, does not mean it is not murder. It is still murder?

          Killing a pedophile to protect the community? Give me a break.

          And the Romans lived 2000 years ago. Science and technology have vastly changed since then.

          Today we can see a living child long before it is born.

          Nice try though.

          1. Ben says:

            Once again.
            This is a fact.
            It’s not murder, unless you are killing out of malice.

          2. Hank Stanco says:

            Murder is not killing out of malice. Murder, like all other crimes is determine on three things: the act, the circumstances and the intent.

            God’s Law is based upon these three as is man’s law.

            That the government has the authority to execute a criminal doesn’t make it any less an intentional killing.

            Abortion is wrong. Capital punishment is wrong.

    2. John D. Partin says:

      So, Sister Ann, just so that I’m understanding you here: the deliberate and planned killing of another human being by a murderer is murder, the deliberate and planned killing of a baby in the womb is murder, but the deliberate and planned killing of a convicted murderer isn’t murder and is just killing? The old saying goes: Killing people who kill people doesn’t show people that killing people is wrong. If anything, it might make some people think that killing some other people might be a good thing, who wouldn’t have thought so otherwise, by causing them to think: “Well, look, even the government thinks that killing people is a good idea and so why shouldn’t I get rid of a few troublesome people myself, too?”. The Nazis who executed Sophie and Hans Scholl of the White Rose as “traitors”, as well as many other people, also used this same sophistry to “justify” their murder of these innocent people. It doesn’t really work any better or more logically and reasonably for us because we murder people (and euphemise it as “killing”) for “democracy”, instead of for National Socialism! These distinctions and hair-splitting are only for the lawyers and debaters afterwards, anyway, because dead is dead, no matter the “reason” that we tell ourselves and others to “justify” our actions. Just lock a murderer up and throw away the key and then you have just as effectively put him or her out of the land of the living, for all practical purposes, as if they were in the grave! Out of sight, out of mind! And mistakes in sentencing a person can be corrected with the person in prison, but not with him or her in the grave. Moreover, rehabilitation can and should take place in prisons, which is a major part of their reason for existing, instead of their just being colleges of criminal knowledge and people’s going in criminals and coming out worse criminals. Just as Bible writers put their own words and views into “God’s mouth” to make “Him agree with them and condemn homosexuality”, they put their words and views into “His mouth” to make “Him demand the death penalty for murderers” because that is what they, not God, wanted: revenge. punishment, retribution! If I’m not allowed to kill those who have hurt or killed my loved ones, then I don’t want the government’s doing it for me, which is only revenge by proxy! As I said, lock them away forever in the “grave” of a prison cell and either actually reform them or keep them locked up!! Defend yourself, of course, if you need to by killing another person to stop him, as we had to do to stop Hitler and in other wars, but don’t kid yourself that your killing, even in self-defense or for a good cause, isn’t the same thing as other people’s killing and murder just for the Hell of it and for a bad cause because dead is dead!!

      1. Hank Stanco says:

        John is correct. Murder, simply defined, is that he intentional killing of a human being.

        Abortion is the intentional killing of a human being. But so is capital punishment.

        If one is truly pro-life, then he would be against any intentional killing.

        1. Ben says:

          You are incorrect.
          Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought.
          As abortions are NOT committed out of malice, abortions are NOT murder.
          I hate when the religious right spread misinformation.

        2. Martha Knight says:

          Murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of another person. That is why we have other terms for naming other crimes where someone’s act or negligence resulted in the death of someone else– Manslaughter, or vehicular manslaughter, for instance, and various DEGREES of homicide and manslaughter.
          Years ago, as I was designing one of nine large windows for a church sanctuary, I wanted to find the Hebrew text of the Ten Commandments. I was referred to Joe Baer, the foremost scholar and theolog of the local synagog. He took me into the temple and to the place where the words of the commandments are written in Hebrew, and spoke them aloud, doing literal translations. Ge pointed out that “Thou shalt not kill” is not to be found. In the law on which the Mosaic covenant is based, God stated, “You must do no murder.” Then he explained that murder was a distinct crime and wicked act: the unjustified killing of another human. It did not forbid war. In Genesis it was done by Cain, supposedly because Abel had sacrificed to God and God was pleased, but Cain had sacrificed to God and God was not pleased so Cain killed from hatred and envy dressed up as being convinced his, Cain’s, religious exercise had been dissed. Murder. David killing Goliath was not murder; David killing King Saul as he slept would have been. Jael killed a sleeping enemy general, and was revered.

  13. Memirsbrunnr (@Memirsbrunnr) says:

    They are not pro life they are pro procreation. Most pf these Christians are just applying modern versions of the Cistercian abbott Arnaud Amalricus argument in the crusade against the albigensians, “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius” or colloquial “kill them all and let god sort them out”. He will decide of they go to Hell or heaven when they are guilty of we accuse them off.

  14. Geoffrey Olive says:

    How was the execution of Jesus ‘unjust’ if this was God’s plan to save sinners from the original sin?
    Something doesn’t make sense here!

    1. Carl Elfstrom says:

      God realized that it would take people unjustly murdering Jesus for his plan to be fulfilled. That made those people no less guilty of murdering Christ. And God put those particular evil people in their particular positions of authority above him so God would have a righteous reason for sending them to hell where they were on their way to going anyway, through no fault of his, but their own. God knew of their sinful natures, and needed such sinners to fulfil his plan, so he used them for that.

      1. Ben says:

        You are wrong.
        Christ was sacrificed. It wasn’t unjust it was “God’s Plan”.

    2. Val Jester says:

      Are you trying to make sense of the plan of salvation?

      1. Ben says:

        Your god is all knowing and all powerful. Why did god let his only son be tortured and murdered? Why couldn’t he have just waved his hand and in a booming voice announce everyone’s salvation?

        1. Michelle says:

          EXACTLY!!!! I have brought that question up to numerous theologians not one could give me an answer. If he is all powerful he would NEED a person to be tortured and killed to save his people. NOT to mention The guy we say is Christ was not the only person to claim to have been born of a virgin or preformed miracles, or as I like to call them Parlor tricks.

          1. power to the people says:

            First, I’d like to say; if you brought up that question to “numerous theologians” and none could give you the answer, either they weren’t much a theologian, or you just didn’t want to accept their answer.

            If he is all powerful he wouldn’t NEED a person to be “tortured and killed”, but rather he “tortured and killed a person” so those blind and stupid would get the impact of it and get their s h i t together.

            He knew he was dealing with humans.

            Finally, ANYBODY can claim parlor tricks or virgin birth……..

        2. power to the people says:

          Ben- you must not get the mechaninisim of salvation.

          Plus, God is not a gray old man sitting on a throne of light and possesing a Ving Rhames like voice.

          1. Don says:

            “power to the people” — Sounds like you are the one who doesn’t get Salvation.

            It’s a Parlor Trick. For God so loved the world that He sent Himself to earth, to sacrifice Himself to Himself to fix a mess He created in the first place (see Genesis Chapter 3).

            It’s a con. Grow up and stop being conned.

          2. power to the people says:


          3. Ben says:

            P2P no, I don’t get it. Probably because I’m not a Christian and don’t need to be saved.
            Especially since your Christ died for our so called sins. Which means we that we should all permanently be absolved of sin. Yet we’re all still sinners. So Christ died for nothing.

        3. Martha Knight says:

          Old Testament scripture tells about the covenants between the Creator and humankind, and contains numerous accounts of blood covenant ceremonies between God and man, and between humans, and between families, and between groups. “Covenant” was the basis of law, and still is significant in dealing and even foreign policy in much of the east and Africa. We in “the West” are not familiar with Covenant history and language, so we can miss much of the meaning of the words of Jesus and his role as the promised Messiah or Christ, who was to bring the ultimate covenant, the New Covenant (Testament). Blood covenant ceremony calls for the sacrifice of a perfect lamb (or kid or dove or calf), exchange of garments, exchange of names, exchange of weapons, blessings and cursings. The Crucifixion took place on a hillside just opposite the hillside where Abraham prepared to sacrifice Isaac but instead sacrificed a ram. Jesus was aware of his role in enacting the New Covenant. At the Last Supper, a covenant commemoration meal, he too the Messiah Cup and Messiah bread, normally not consumed but spoken of in terms of promise, and directed the people at the table to drink/eat, and informed them those would no longer be used at some occasions in anticipation of the coming Messiah, but in REMEMBRANCE. The Messiah was to be able to remit or cancel past sin and provide grace for new sin when there was repentance (turning away from) sin (opposition to God).
          In the account of the temptation of Jesus during his fast in the desert, after his baptism, he was offered power to rule on earth, and other blandishments, if he would renounce his ministry and role as messiah, and he rejected each offer with a reason. The offers were made with reasons provided in quotations from scripture, and Jesus refused also using scripture as his reasons. We are told that he WAS tempted, not just that the attempt was made. There was struggle or effort involved. Exercising his human free will, Jesus could have renounced his mission. He was able to keep covenant with God and go on with his role as Messiah, bringer of the New Covenant, and as the Lamb of God, the sacrifice.
          Blood Covenant theology/history is the scarlet thread that runs through the OT and NT writings. But we in the west know about as much about covenant as, um, the pop ditty of a few decades ago, “May the Bird of Paradise Fly Up Your Nose,” which contained parodies of such cursings as might be included in a covenant enactment ceremony.

        4. John Owens says:

          That is the nature of a sacrifice.

          1. Don says:

            “That is the nature of a sacrifice”

            Yes, and totally contradictory to the idea of an omniscient being. (Omniscient means all-knowing, since you post like you didn’t know)

          2. John Owens says:

            Has nothing to do with omniscient, since you post like you don’t know.

      2. Geoffrey Olive says:

        Yes, and the usual reply, “God works in mysterious ways.”, is not an acceptable answer to most theological arguments that do not have an answer that makes sense!

        1. power to the people says:

          Just because it doesn’t make sense to you or the answer is not what you wanted to hear, doesn’t make it wrong.

          Plus, I’ve only heard that line in movies, or from someones grandma.

          1. Carl Elfstrom says:

            Actually, the song goes “She moves in mysterious ways”,and is referring to the Goddess, not the God. Blessed be !

  15. Carl Elfstrom says:

    I’ve heard that an abortion can be performed at home, in secrecy, using nothing but a wire clothes hanger. And those really dont cost much, other than a guilty conscience for having taken an innocent life, before It got started. And who wants to live with one of those? I can’t understand how throughout history so many people, many of whom which profess religious faith, can condemn a person to death, as if they were acting as God’s proxy,, like God wasn’t here, so they had the right to act in his behalf. Well, I’ve got news for them. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and the law of karma will prevail over all. Everything will be balanced, regardless of who gave them the legal right to condemn, and whatever they say in their defense. They will pay for their crimes against God, as will the executioner, and those who are executioner for their heinous crimes, as God sees fit, with or without the interjection of others, who only want to see criminals suffer, as they see fit, and blame their selfish, sadistic motives on the good of society .

  16. Martha Knight says:

    Christians claim to be concerned with eternal life, the life and future state of the soul. According to the Genesis account of the Creation, only one creature was touched by the Creator to inspirit him. So humans have souls, God receptors, unlike other creatures.
    Christian scripture also teaches that the soul is immortal, and that God preserves it. Most of scripture speaks of the mortal life of humans as being from birth to death, except for the poetic passage in a psalm where David addresses God as the creator who knit him together in his mother’s womb.
    At what point in a human’s existence would he/she be in the best condition, soul-wise? When he is sinless? A just and merciful God does not banish from his presence forever someone who has never sinner, or willfully opposed God’s will. So if we consider the unborn to be living humans, complete with souls, wouldn’t it follow that a being “killed” in that state goes either into soul sleep awaiting the resurrection followed by eternity with God, or else goes directly to the presence of God (there is Scripture for either outcome)? Either way, eternal life and bliss await.

  17. power to the people says:

    Anyhow, who says that “Christians oppose abortion, but support the death penalty”?

    Did I miss something, or is someone just trying to stir the pot?

    1. power to the people says:

      That’s what I thought.

      I love it when someone says something, puts it out there as “fact” then most people read it as such and swallow it hook line and sinker.

      1. Geoffrey Olive says:

        Sounds exactly like what you are doing by accepting such statements as “God works in mysterious ways” as facts with no evidence. Also called faith!

        1. power to the people says:

          Faith can be a great thing.

          1. power to the people says:

            Except I’m not sure what you think I am swallowing hook, line, and sinker.

          2. John Owens says:

            He’s just harping.

          3. Don says:

            Religious faith is synonymous with mental illness.
            Belief without evidence, or in the face of contradictory evidence that refutes it, is not sane.

            “I love it when someone says something, puts it out there as “fact” then most people read it as such and swallow it hook line and sinker.”

            Like your Bible? Yeah, glad you love abject ignorance. I abhor it myself.

  18. Antonia Blue Star says:

    … WAR

  19. William Waugh says:

    Abortion access is a population control tool. Too too many opportunities for pregnacies in a free will society. Perhaps all the folks living around the corner will eventually be enlightened enough to only birth babies whose lives have already been carefully planned thru college or beyond. …Capital punishment exists as a moralistic tool. Anyone lacking enough empathy to murder can only be deterred by the concrete knowledge that certain actions will result in death. Get over this petty b.s. and like I heard it said of “trekkies” (Star Trek fans)…… Get out of the house a little. Walk outside. Get a life!

    1. John Owens says:

      Protected sex would give a lot more bang for the buck, and take no innocent babies’ lives, or cause women’s deaths in the process.

    2. Carl Elfstrom says:

      We’ve got too many people in the world, for crying out loud! Don’t forget about good ol’ masturbation. It works for me.

  20. Gary Hynous says:

    In my opinion, if you take a life you give up your own right to a life. Why should my tax dollars support a murderer or rapist? As for abortion, the only time I can condone it is a pregnancy as a result of rape or if the mother’s life is in jeopardy. Children should be conceived out of love not rape. Whatever part of us that remains to be reborn into a new life would probably decide to find a new mother in the case of rape.

  21. Mark Hannon says:

    I think Jesus stopped the stoning death of a woman that could well have committed the sin she was accused of by following Judaic law. It would have helped if what He was writing in the dirt had been recorded.
    Starving and killing children in Syria, Yemen and other wars the U.S.A. is involved in should be wrong to ProLife people but it doesn’t seem to bother them.
    Poor children in the U.S. that aren’t given medicine or medical care can kill children, too. But ProLife people still vote for people that will take this help away from them.
    I struggle with this as a Christian but I also am certain that freewill extends to what a U.S. citizen does with their own body.

    1. power to the people says:

      Mark- As for your last line:

      Heroin addicts have been trying to abort themselves for years, but now we have that damn NARCAN so we can stop then from doing what they want with their U.S. citizen bodies. Oh, and speaking oif bodies…..what about the unborn baby? Why can’t they do what they want with their body?

      1. Michelle Teeter says:

        So addicts do not deserve to live. Good to know

      2. Mark Hannon says:

        How do we know that if they had full consciousness of their future that they wouldn’t want to choose to not be born? I am considering birth defects and children born with pain or to abusive parents. To me it’s all a matter of a person’s stage of understanding.
        While attending a fundamentalist Baptist church as a teenager I was told that children under a certain age were allowed direct entry to heaven but after reaching a stage of knowledge they needed to accept Christ’s grace or they would go to hell.
        Now I believe that people grow in their relationship and understanding of God in their lives.

  22. Mark Hannon says:

    Also, I am a very liberal person that leans Christian, I have had the born again experience and I am an organist in a Christian church. I see myself as more one God for all in nature.
    I would like to see an alternative to abortion like funding for good homes or group living but conservatives don’t want to pay for that option. I can’t see how voting for them would bring about a real change as long as the military is more important than the country the military is supposed to protect.

  23. Ministers of love and acceptance says:

    I really hope the people posting here are not ministers! I hope they do not claim to be Christian either. The people here are not only unkind but downright hateful. ULC is about love and acceptance. Maybe I should not come hear to be around good decent loving people. I have read many articles posted by ULC and the comments are typically filled with hateful people, most of which sound live they are right wing conservatives. Why would they be on a religious site that is all about acceptance of all? The right wing conservatives tend to only accept Christians.

    1. Ben says:

      After watching the news and reading the posts of Christians here; I find them to be the most hateful and intolerant people in America.
      Glad I’m not one of them. Christians frighten me.

      1. Mark Hannon says:

        I have the same problems with Christianity. I feel like I belong to a pre-Abrahamic religion that may not even be monotheistic but probably is.

      2. Iconoclast says:

        Ridiculous and untrue.

        1. Iconoclast says:

          What sorcery is this?

        2. Ben says:

          Iconoclast prove me wrong. There’s the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, slavery in the USA was permitted because of Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, VI, 5-7: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.”
          How about the burning times? Lastly anti-lbgtq actions which Christians promote because of Leviticus, but won’t stone the president to death as an adulterer, even though Leviticus demands that too.
          How about “Christian Identity” which is the name of a religious movement uniting many of the white supremacist groups in the United States?
          Prove me wrong.

          1. Iconoclast says:

            Prove yourself correct. Prove that Ephesians VI: 5-7 is the CAUSE of anything having to do with slavery. It is one thing when people try to justify something with scripture, like claiming Jesus was a socialist, but it is another to claim the scripture created it. Slavery predated Paul’s writings by millennia, and he was not referring to actual slavery in that passage, but employment.

            Prove that “Christian Identity is uniting “many” of the white supremacist groups in the U.S. I am not connected in any way with any of these so-called movements, so I have no idea what is happening with them, but I think their numbers and their activity are being very highly over-estimated, in order to deflect from other groups and activities.

            Prove the crusades were not actually fought over land and resources, with a religious pretext publicized to the masses. You must understand, I am persuaded that Catholicism is “Christian” in name only.

            I do think it is hypocritical to speak against LGBTQ practices if one is not going to speak against all fornication outside of marriage, but I cannot in good conscience limit that kind of hypocrisy to Christians, since other religions also look the other way on some sexual infidelities, and not others.

            Last of all, prove that the posts of Christians on here are more hateful than ALL of the other posts on here. You know that you cannot. That is just a perception on your part, which, if analyzed will prove false, but your actual sentiments will not change, because that is the nature of humans. I only ask that people analyze the extremity of their own speech, before typing it on here and pressing the “Post Comment” button.

    2. John Owens says:

      They all hope you grow a brain.

  24. Ben says:

    Conservatives: Our laws should be based on the Bible!
    Me: So you support stoning Donald Trump for adultery?

    Conservatives: Wait

  25. Travis says:

    It is actually pretty simple for a person to be Pro-Life and to support the Death Penalty, at the same time, with one simple fact.

    Allowing hardened, remorseless serial murderers to continue living (even on taxpayer resources) cheapens the intrinsic value of the victims’ lives, and devalues the Justice system in the eyes of the friends and families of the murdered victims. Brutal murderers took lives that did not belong to them, so they owe a life in return as payment; namely their own.

    1. Mark Hannon says:

      You should research the Swedish form of imprisonment. It is more humane and much cheaper than our system and it has proven results.

      1. Ministers of love and acceptance says:

        But then no one would be getting rich on private prisons. You the religious right are very fond or them

        1. Travis says:

          I am not a member of the so-called “religious right”.

          The “religious right” would call me a heretic for the things I take to be true.

          I’m merely describing how it can be possible for someone to be against Abortion (Pro-Life), while at the same time supporting the Death Penalty.

          Just because a person supports something as a necessity of Justice does not necessarily mean they are “fond” of it.

          Not all parents who spank their children are “fond” of seeing their child in pain, but they recognize the need to teach them the consequences of their actions. Without that, the children grow up to become either spoiled welfare junkies or criminals with no respect for societal law.

          1. Martha Knight says:

            There is much evidence to show that inflicting physical pain or humiliation on children does not advance their moral development. It is a way of modeling bullying behavior. Evidence also shows little if any correlation between likelihood of becoming dependent on welfare or social services and not having been spanked or otherwise subjected to pain as a child. Respect for the justice system comes from observing careful and effective operations of law enforcement of laws and operation of the justice and corrections systems. But we do see much evidence that parental neglect and/or abuse harm children in their character development and are lead to criminal behavior.

      2. Travis says:

        Right, so….

        We are discussing criminals who take preasure in going around, brutally murdering and raping people with no apology, nor sense of remorse. These criminals thrill in the excitement of committing brutal and savage murder, and do not feel sorry, in the least. These thugs have no sense of the anguish that the friends and families, of the people whose lives the criminal has taken. They care even less of this anguish that they inflict on the living.
        Criminals who commit the most inhumane of acts against innocent human beings.

        Denying the families of the Justice of repaying the victim’s life with that of the criminal, only rewards the criminal for committing inhumane attrocities, teaches violent criminals that it is okay to commit murder, and devalues the live of the innocent murdered victim(s).

        Why does a person who commits brutally inhumane murders deserve especially humane treatment?

        1. Carl Elfstrom says:

          Why don’t you ask your God about that, Travis? I think he wants us to love and forgive unconditionally, and leave the punishing to him. He may have made us in his image, but didn’t make us to be he himself. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Killing a defenseless murderer in a straightjacket on death row makes you a murderer. And don’t think God won’t justly reward you for that, or or even for agreeing with it. How would you like to find yourself face to face with the murderer you killed, when both of you are in Hell for committing relentless murders, in a steel cage, no holds barred match that lasts forever, despite all the people who encouraged you, and said you did a good thing, for the good of society, so they won’t have to pay for him to have three hots and a cot. They don’t pay those convicts much for making license plates or whatever. Have you considered the profit that is made off of you them. Society is being paid in full, and a lot more, by all that slave labor in prison. Frying murderers means losing valuable workers, who will gladly work for a little commissary money, and a constructive activity. Tax dollars are used for far more than housing prisoners.

        2. Martha Knight says:

          Because nor one of us is qualified or entitled to determine the degree of guilt pertaining to another, nor when his/her opportunity to repent should be cut off. As Jesus said to the group of men intent on executing a sinner, the sinless would be qualified to judge and execute the sinner. Jesus was the bringer of the New Covenant, as it had been promised and foretold the Messiah would do. When he said he had fulfilled (not broken) the Law (basis of the Mosaic Covenant), he included the part of needing to atone for past sins, and Christian doctrine maintains, sins of others, then living and on into the future.
          Other Christian doctrine maintains that vengeance belongs to God, and will be based on judgments made at the last Judgment. And that people now may relate to God under the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace. God’s grace toward humans permits the remission of their sins. God alone knows the condition of their souls and their status as to covenant with God and eternal reward.
          The ending of another life does nothing to restore the loss of family and friends, or the community at large or society, from the criminal taking of a life. The concept of “closure” is artificial. To assign guilt and punish a person found guilty can be considered justice or closure. Christian doctrine denies that the old standard of an eye for an eye is valid under the New Covenant or modern times, and certainly that is not the basis of modern punishment.

          1. John Owens says:

            So, no one should ever be punished again for anything? That is where your logic is leading.

          2. Martha Knight says:

            Obviously I have not said no one should be punished for anything. But execution as punishment is outside the parameters of what Christianity as set forth in the New Covenant. Your straw man exaggeration has no basis in my posts.

          3. Ben says:

            We have separation of church and state. Religious views have no place in lawmaking.

          4. John Owens says:

            Martha, first of all, you need to re-read the wording of the promise of the New Covenant. There is not one word in it about doing away with any of the law. Not one word.

            Second, Christianity is not a legal code for a nation. At no time did Jesus or Paul or James or John or Phillip or Timothy or Cephas tell us how to set up any legal system. THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN COVERED BY MOSES.

            Third: Unless you think that Christianity somehow addresses enough aspects of our legal system and you want that to somehow be enforced by the government, YOUR argument is hollow.

            Fourth: If it is wrong to kill a convicted murderer or pedophile because they MIGHT be wrongfully convicted, how can it be all right to kill an innocent baby who has never harmed anyone nor thought of doing so?

            Now, calling something a straw man is a dodge, for when you realize your logic has failed. If you cannot be certain enough of a person’s guilt to put them to death, how can you be certain enough of their guilt to put them in prison for life? That is the logic question you do fail to comprehend.

          5. Hank Stanco says:

            Luke 12:35-48 is a parable. When Jesus speaks heis speaking in reference to the parable.

            Don is a troll that either loves to argue or loves to be right. He is not worth the time.

          6. Don says:

            Ah, the old, worn out Parable Excuse. (never mind that Jesus was teaching it)
            And right after, another sleazy insult.
            I wonder if Hank Stinko even realizes that his childish bullying here just exposes him as a spineless little Christian hatemonger? Oh well, doesn’t really matter.

        3. Martha Knight says:

          Ben, this discussion is about the consistency or inconsistency of Christians opposing abortion being legal while supporting the death penalty.

          1. Martha Knight says:

            Jesus said he had come to fulfill the law.
            The Mosaic covenant replaced the Abrahamic Covenant. There were other covenants according to the Old Testament, but the Abrahamic Covenant was replaced by the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was based on Law, and the required response of humans was obedience. The Messiah Covenant, the New Covenant, was based on Grace, and the response required from humans is love. Thus Christ stated two commandments, pointing out that they actually contained the full meaning of the Law: to love God with our very being, and to love our fellow humans unconditionally.

            I haven’t said Christianity is a legal code for a nation. I have said the Blood Covenant has been the basis of the system of law in other parts of the world, and still is recognized in various codices. Stanley the explorer made his way through a part of “unexplored” Africa searching for Livingston my “cutting covenant” with a number of local tribes so as to be protected from other tribes he would encounter, showing the covenant scars on his forearm. The NT writings are full of covenant references, largely lost on us in western cultures.

            It is wrong to kill someone as a punishment not only because a convicted person might not be guilty after all, bot also because it ends the period of time in this life when the person could attain forgiveness by God and be reconciled with God (salvation). Also because vengeance is not ours to mete out.

            Calling an argument a straw man is done by those of us who use logic properly, when it IS a straw man argument. But that might not be how you carry out argument or debate.

            I am discussing the initial matter set forth in the opening post, addressing some of the reasons given by the anti-choice people who support the death penalty. Some of them like to quote OT scriptures, especially the Decalogue.

          2. John Owens says:

            You are worried about a convicted murderer’s salvation, but not worried about their victim’s salvation? The killer took the victim’s opportunity for repentance in this life, also. I would point out that no scripture says we must repent IN THIS LIFETIME to avoid Gehenna fire. Not one.
            And you still have not read the new covenant. If you did, you would see that it is not just two commandments. And you still say straw man as if it means anything. I have said nothing untrue here.
            Grace by definition, is temporary, and not Eternal. WHEN the New Covenant is established (it has not been established yet) with the Houses of Israel and Judah (to whom it is promised), not ONE of the laws will be abolished. Not even the Sabbath and Holy Days.
            Aside from all of that, the best way to prevent a murderer from killing again, is to put him or her to death. If God has never called them in this life, they will still be given an opportunity in the second resurrection. If they were innocent, God will know that.

          3. Don says:

            This would be the same Jesus who taught to beat slaves, even those who were not being disobedient? Yeah, same jerk (Luke 12:47).
            No thanks…any racist maggot who thinks beating slaves is okay needs to be buried.

          4. John Owens says:

            Just a point of fact: There is no scripture where Jesus condoned the beating of slaves. I am curious what scripture could be interpreted that way

          5. Don says:

            “There is no scripture where Jesus condoned the beating of slaves.”
            Poor John Owens – I even posted the verse and he refuses to admit it.
            Luke 12:47 “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, SHALL BE BEATEN with many stripes.”

            What part of SHALL BE BEATEN are you having trouble with?

          6. John Owens says:

            What part of PARABLE do you not understand, Donny? That whole discourse is a PARABLE. It is not LITERAL. This is why you should not try to teach scripture.

          7. Don says:

            “What part of PARABLE do you not understand” – The part where cowardly Christian apologists use it as an excuse.

            Here, the ACTUAL definition:

            Parable (noun) a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson

            Notice how this clown first denies the verse it in the Bible…and then when PROVEN WRONG, switches to the Parable Excuse complete with insults. Thanks for once again exposing your ignorance.

          8. Don says:

            “It is not LITERAL.”

            Um, we’re talking about THE BIBLE here. Which parts exactly are you claiming ARE literal? Genesis? Revelation?? LOL!!!

  26. Bob Hilton says:

    To live is to kill, consuming life about…plant & animal, humans by extension. To live is to die and be consumed by plant and animal, humans by extension. It’s what we do; life. Our souls, eternal or not, divide the holy circle of life into living or dead, good and evil, cause and effect. Ask your dog or your apple tree, who exist in the same circle of life as do us, of their views on abortion or murder. Tell OUR special story to the living Earth! Remind GOD how clever we are! Do whatever it takes to argue and blind our experience to participate in the holy grails of NOW. Meaningless? Immoral? Irresponsible? Or GLORY and BLISS, the point of conscious existence? Ours to wrestle, ours to sing…It’s fun living as a Christian Don Quixote!

  27. Tom says:

    ULC/Joseph…where are my comments?????…Peace… Tom

    1. Carl Elfstrom says:

      Tom, they still sometimes delete some of my comments too, and moderate all of them. They’ve been doing that ever since that article about Billy Graham, when I wrote some very bad things about him. Although my comments have very much improved since then, and they publish a lot more of my comments than not, some of them don’t make it. However, in retrospect, I almost always realize they were right, and reminds me that this is not a free for all, and if they don’t think something sounds right for what we are discussing, it doesn’t get published. So, I take it in stride, or grin and bear it, and suggest you do the same. We’ve been posting comments on this blog now longer than most, and it makes me wonder what happened to the others. Did they get pissed off about the good ol’ ULC not posting all of their comments, or did the ULC quit posting any of their comments. Maybe they get tired of us, and want to hear from a new batch of ministers, with different ideas. Whatever the case I’m glad we’re still hanging in there. You write a lot of good things that I appreciate reading. Peace… Love… .

      1. Tom says:

        Carl…thank you…my feeling is that if we do not curse or encourage violence the comments should appear…i know of no standard setting a rule for the applicability of comments…i appreciate your continuing to be part of the blog…Peace…Tom

        1. power to the people says:

          Just be assured that the comments you try to post could be “moderated” by whatever left wingy troll that happens to be on the job that day.


  28. Mark Hannon says:

    I have wondered about this and many aspects of the subject of abortion. After commenting yesterday I got to thinking this morning about the idea that there wasn’t really a Pro Life (Birth) movement before Roe v. Wade but abortions have been happening for all of human history.
    Women knew what herbs to take to cause miscarriages and midwives knew how to end pregnancy even pre-Abraham.
    Does the Bible not reference this because women weren’t allowed to interact with the men working with the Bible. And this was something they didn’t especially want the men to know about.

  29. Carl Elfstrom says:

    Mark Hannon, Seriously speaking, you or someone reading this ought to write a book about those herbs that induce miscarriage. I’m sure a lot of women don’t know about that, and it would be the perfect solution to avoiding getting abortions. It would undoubtedly be a bestseller, and you would undoubtedly make millions (if you get a good publisher) !

    1. Carl Elfstrom says:

      P.S. If you don’t get a good publisher your publisher will make your millions and give you chump change, but at least you’ll be famous, and published.

    2. Mark Hannon says:

      You could already Google it.
      Dong Quai, Black Cohosh, Blue Cohosh, Penny Royal, Golden Seal are some. These and other herbs are called “abortifacient” which is Latin for a substance that induces abortion.
      Check with a nature witch for amounts.
      I live in the Hiawatha National Forest and even with my modest knowledge of herbs I can find useful plants.

  30. Travis Wilbur says:

    Wow. What a shark tank of vultures.

    Seems like Christians can’t even find moral refuge on a religious website devoted to reliogious harmony in spite of moral differences.

    I don’t claim to be Christian, but Damn! You guys make the ancient Roman colliseums seem like Bar Mitzvahs!


    1. Ben says:

      Where can you find morality in Christianity? As a priest, you can rape an entire orphanage full of kids, go to confession and go about your merry way. Even better the diocese will relocate you, to hide you.
      Just look at recent news in Pennsylvania. Hundreds of priests, thousands of children, and not one excommunication.

    2. Don says:

      Moral refuge? Christianity??

      Seriously, have you ever bothered to read the Bible?

  31. Ben says:

    If abortion was murder, then doctors wouldn’t be allowed to perform them.
    They are, so it isn’t.

  32. Robert Wood says:

    I used to be Pro Death Penalty, however, I have spent some time wrestling with the idea of being pro-life and pro-death penalty. Every day due to the inhumane methods of the death penalty, I become less Pro-Death and more Pro-Life by saying I believe that the Death Penalty is equally wrong as it is with murder and abortion.

  33. Ben says:

    Iconoclast; I was talking about why Christianity is evil.
    I said that slavery was “permitted” not caused because of quotes from biblical scripture.
    “Christian Unity” is a group of Christian racists. Look them up.
    The Crusades were led by “a” Christian church. Whether you acknowledge Catholics as Christian or not. Society at large does.
    The Spanish Inquisition? You left that out. Their practice as well as those of later Witchfinders were utterly evil.
    LGBTQ people. Married or not are treated horrifically by most Christian teachings.
    Proof that Christians are the most hateful people here? That’s easy. Most of the posts on this site, are by so called Christians and the majority(50%+) of what’s posted by them is full of hate and/or intolerance.

    1. Iconoclast says:

      The statement that Christians put the most hateful posts here is subjective at best and basically untrue. I have seen plenty of hateful anti-christian posts here, and then if a Christian or an advocate of Christians responds, THEY are attacked and accused. It is true, there are a few “Christian” fanatics, but very few, and they do not comment on many posts. The idea that they disagree with something or disapprove of it does not constitute hate. Those represent Christianity here do not appear to me to be more than 15%. Again, that is perspective, I guess. I see this time that you include intolerance with hate. I think you and I have different definitions of tolerance. I think it does not mean that one person encourages another in behavior that they believe to harmful. It may mean the opposite to you.

      Also, your earlier statement about fearing Christians is a little over the top. They aren’t out killing people, contrary to the wild paranoid conspiracy theories about the evil Christian white nationalists.

      1. Ben says:

        Iconoclast – who’s against abortion & women being in control of their own bodies in general?
        Who’s against gays (or the LBGQT community in general) getting married or having any of the other basic rights that straight people have?
        There are an estimated 917 Alt-Right/White Supremists groups in America. What religion are they?
        It goes on and on, but the answer is Christians.
        I have a Born Again Christian coworker, who announced to the lunchroom that any woman who gets an abortion, should be aborted herself.
        Are these things tolerant?
        Is the last not hateful?
        How tolerant are the religious right? All you hear from them, is them wanting to take someone’s rights away.
        That’s not hate? That’s nothing to fear.

        1. Iconoclast says:

          No one is trying to “control women’s bodies”. If women WERE controlling their own bodies, there would be no unwanted pregnancies. You want to look at a culture that controls women’s bodies, look at Islam. They will hang a woman for allowing herself to be gang-raped.

          The language you are speaking is just the Left’s talking points. Why do you let let others put words in your mouth like that?

          Being opposed to abortion as it is being espoused is not even a Christian thing–it is a human, humane, intelligent thing. What is being sold to the public is contrary to nature and common sense.

          Where did you get that number of alt-right (whatever that means) WHITE hate groups, and what is their approximate membership? Why do you not mention any other groups? Surely they exist. Is your coworker that you mentioned any more hateful than you are? Am I?

  34. Frank Villari says:

    There is a distinct difference between innocence and guilt, between murder and consequences of actions.

  35. Hank Stanco says:

    If one is pro-life, then one must support and defend the unborn, care for the living and an end to capital punishment. One must be completely pro-life or not at all. The same for the pro-choice side. One should be able to choose abortion but must accept that care for the living and capital punishment.

    I usually ask people to agree or disagree with the following statement: The intentional killing of a human being is wrong. Watch how quick the room becomes silent.

    The problem lies with the notion that one can pick and choose which rules to follow. Cafeteria Christianity is not acceptable.

    1. John Owens says:

      But YOU don’t pick the rules. Innocent babies are just that. They are not just unwanted growths inside a woman. We eagerly await them to see what good things they may do or be. Convicted murderer’s and pedophiles, rapists have already shown what they will be. They are unwanted, undesirable. They should be eliminated.

      Your argument is backwards. It should be, if you can abort a baby, you should execute murderers.

    2. Ben says:

      Hank Stance;
      I’m pro-it’s no one’s business, but the mother’s.
      I’m also pro death penalty. It’s not wrong to kill. Execute: serial killers, terrorists (domestic and foreign) and baby rapists. The community must be protected.

      1. John Owens says:

        We are in agreement on the death penalty, Ben.

    3. Tom says:

      Hank…respectfully, there is no “must” that requires consistency…that is a political position for argument…we are all free to make any decisions we wish…but try to be mindful of the karmic results…Peace…Tom

  36. Hank Stanco says:

    There is a consistency. It issued bjective truth. The object: the intentional killing of a human being. It is either right or wrong. One can’t pick and choose which life is worth more than another.

    1. John Owens says:

      So, you’re saying, it is okay to kill murderers, because it is okay to kill innocent babies.

  37. Hank Stanco says:

    I never said it was okay to do do anything. I pointed out if one is one is truly pro-life the one should be against any intentional killing and if one is truly pro-choice then choosing to execute a murderer is the same as choosing to abort a fetus.

    Try this test on your friends. Ask them to agree or disagree with the following statement: The intentional killing of a human being is wrong. In almost every test no one can agree or disagree. Why?

    Because those that claim to be politically conservative say they are pro-life but support the death penalty while those that claim to be politically liberal are pro-choice when it comes to abortion but want the death penalty abolished.

    Hardly anyone would say they are truly pro-life or pro-choice.

    1. John Owens says:

      The death penalty IS pro-life. Once applied, a murderer, rapist, or pedophile will never commit another crime.

      1. Hank Stanco says:

        The death penalty is just that-death. It is still the intentional killing of a human being.

        1. Don says:

          Yes, good. Now add “killing a person who is about to commit mass murder, even doing so in self-defense, is STILL the intentional killing of a human being.” Words have meanings.

          1. John Owens says:


          2. Hank Stanco says:

            Nope. You have no idea of the meaning of the word intent. Won’t argue with you anymore. You’re just not worth my time.

        2. Don says:

          ‘Intent (noun) intention or purpose’

          As I said, words have meanings, you don’t get to change them.

          Willfull ignorance is pathetic…but to be expected from those with superstitious ideologies.

    2. Don says:

      “Try this test on your friends. Ask them to agree or disagree with the following statement: The intentional killing of a human being is wrong.”

      Every person I posed this question to had the exact same answer: Depends on the context of the situation.

      Claiming “choosing to execute a murderer is the same as choosing to abort a fetus” is narrow minded and ignorant, and completely ignores context.

    3. Ben says:

      Hank as a centrist (a Libertarian) I’m pro-choice & pro-death penalty.

      1. Hank Stanco says:

        Every now and then one comes forward as truly pro-life or pro-choice. You are one of those few.

        1. Nfmomof3 says:

          I think you underestimate our numbers. There are lots of people who are ok with both. As to the death penalty I am ok with it. My problem is too many innocent have died do to poor police work. The death penalty should not be applied if based on eyewitness testimony.

  38. Ben says:

    Just read the relevant story:

    Just had one ofthe best lectures l’ve had in med school.
    It was on The ethics of abortion, and I was sorta expecting a lecture tip-toeing around the different viewpoints without offending anyone. But our lecturer slayed
    – she started out by saying how the pro life side always get emotive pictures of babies and foetuses etc, and that there’s hardly any for pro choice. So she put up a photo of a woman lying dead on the floor, after bleeding out from an unsafe abortion her partner tried to perform on her.
    – she showed us statistics on how abortion rates are lower in countries with safe legal access to abortion
    -she showed us more statistics on how high maternal death rates and deaths from unsafe abortions became when countries made access to abortion more restricted
    -she put up photos of discarded babies in streets and rubbish bins in countries where abortion is illegal
    -she talked about a case in the US where a woman was ex-communicated from an ethics committee at a catholic hospital, after the committee allowed a woman with life-threatening complications to have an abortion, then our lecturer commented that it’s funny how it was wrong for her to do that, yet child abuse is apparently ok
    -she went through cases of more women who were so desperate to have an abortion that they seriously harmed themselves
    – she ended the lecture on the photo of the woman who died, and said whatever your stance on abortion, the fact is that if a woman has made up her mind that she doesn’t want to be pregnant, she will do whatever she can to get an
    abortion, even if it puts her life at risk

    1. John Owens says:

      She also put her life at risk when she allows a man to ejaculate inside of her. That is a fact.

      1. Ben says:

        John Owens – right. Men put women’s lives at risk by ejaculating inside of them. Allowed or not. Especially since in many places in the world, women have no say in what a man does.

  39. Martha Knight says:

    As someone who had an abortion for reasons that were moral and compelling, but still grieves because of the necessity and loss, I can tell you that it is nowhere near as simple as “allowing a man to ejaculate inside her.” There are many possible variables, including Please also consider the risks inherent in even a “healthy” pregnancy. My grandmother died of acute nephritis, after a long, premature labor. Her seventh pregnancy, at age 44. Her youngest surviving child, then five years old, was to become my mother. Her cold, selfish husband would not use birth control and did not let her have prenatal care. From her journals I know Carrie was a loving and dutiful mother who felt she must obey and please her husband. Their eldest child, age 17, then became the woman of the home and raised my mother, on a farm with coal heat and cooking, no laundry appliances.
    Pregnancy is dangerous. Recovery from vaginal delivery after normal pregnancy is equivalent to recovery from major abdominal surgery. Recovery from a C-section is much more difficult. Women have the moral right to consider their own risks and needs and other family needs and their own. For many of us, medical advice concerning our own health can pinpoint certain unique considerations. The simplistic stuff is not helpful. Individual circumstances must be weighed.

  40. Ben says:

    Most Christians are Pro-Birth, not Pro-Life.
    Christianity is a death cult after all.
    Life is suffering, death is paradise.

Leave a Comment